View Full Version : High or low-mass record weights/clamps: which is best?
sq225917
18-09-2012, 22:44
{Discussion moved from The Gallery, here: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showthread.php?p=363629#post363629 }
I've got a much earlier version of this currently sat round mine and it ticks all the boxes for me. I've always been loathe to use the Kuzma weight/clamp. it just doesn't make any sense to me, a brand goes to all that trouble to manufacture the quietest bearing they can for a deck, then they go and spoil it by loading the bearing with several hundred grams of weight for a clamp- when its clamping force, not weight that is really needed.
Don't me started on after-market record weights, they are just the height of stupidity, especially as you can press the record down without adding a load of mass by other means.
Hi Simon,
Don't me started on after-market record weights, they are just the height of stupidity, especially as you can press the record down without adding a load of mass by other means.
In essence, I agree.
However, bear in mind that added mass is less of an issue for some T/Ts, than others, particularly 'battleship build' direct-drives (and no, I'm not talking here about the SL-1200), which have suitably massive, uber-engineered bearings and shed-loads of torque, thus rendering them completely unperturbed by the presence of ANY 'bad-ass' record weight! ;)
Marco.
chris@panteg
19-09-2012, 08:17
High mass record weight for suspended belt drive TT's NO
High mass record weight for solid Direct Drive TT's YES
It's not so much the weight/stress on the bearing with the former , but the extra weight on the suspension that's a real problem surely ?
High mass record weight for suspended belt drive TT's NO
High mass record weight for solid Direct Drive TT's YES
Quite; it's a simple formula (although, also add idlers, high-mass string and tape-drive T/Ts, into the 'YES' category), but unfortunately some daftees insist on there being a universal record clamp/weight solution for all types of T/Ts! ;)
It simply t'aint so...
Marco.
High mass record weight for suspended belt drive TT's NO
High mass record weight for solid Direct Drive TT's YES
It's not so much the weight/stress on the bearing with the former , but the extra weight on the suspension that's a real problem surely ?
Likewise idlers with massive bearings.
Also what about the mat? If the mat has a series of points supporting the record I can see that a little pressure to ensure correct seating is a good thing but too much pressure would likely nullify the benefits of the pointy support. As Marco says, no universal solution.
chris@panteg
19-09-2012, 08:41
Quite; it's a simple formula (although, also add idlers, high-mass string and tape-drive T/Ts, into the 'YES' category), but unfortunately some daftees insist on there being a universal record clamp/weight solution for all types of T/Ts! ;)
It simply t'aint so...
Marco.
Agree .
chris@panteg
19-09-2012, 08:42
Likewise idlers with massive bearings.
Also what about the mat? If the mat has a series of points supporting the record I can see that a little pressure to ensure correct seating is a good thing but too much pressure would likely nullify the benefits of the pointy support. As Marco says, no universal solution.
Sorry , yes I should add idlers .
Likewise idlers with massive bearings.
Also what about the mat? If the mat has a series of points supporting the record I can see that a little pressure to ensure correct seating is a good thing but too much pressure would likely nullify the benefits of the pointy support. As Marco says, no universal solution.
Yup, too many variables to consider.
However, let's get back on topic and await piccies of Mark's fab new clamp :cool:
Marco.
Indeed, I'm sure it'll be optimised for his nipply mat :eyebrows:
Oh yes, I don't doubt that :)
Marco.
chris@panteg
19-09-2012, 09:38
My concerns regarding heavy record weights are not related to bearing wear or suspension compression (although these are valid factors). In addition, motor torque is not an issue as it is unlikely to be a problem even with very heavy weights as the mass is at the centre of rotation and has a very low rotational velocity. In my opinion (and experience), coupling the record directly to any mass results in a negative sonic impact (irrespective of associated positive elements) - heavy duty bearings and high torque motors cannot address this.
I'm not saying mine is a universal solution - but it is the best solution I have encountered. With regard to it's interaction with minimum contact mats - respectfully, I suggest I understand these better than most.
However, as Marco suggests, I would rather this thread were not hijacked to discuss the merit of alternative drive systems etc.
Very fair point Mark , ok .
In my opinion (and experience), coupling the record directly to any mass results in a negative sonic impact (irrespective of associated positive elements) - heavy duty bearings and high torque motors cannot address this.
We'll have to agree to differ on that matter, as my experience of using high-mass weights, with the likes of the Platine Verdier, Scheu Analog Premier, Thorens TD124, SP10, and Goldring G99, suggests otherwise! Theories are fine up to a point, but only using the specific turntables you've worked with, as a reference ;)
Like Clive says, much depends on the mat being used, as the mat and clamp/weight should be viewed as 'one', in terms of achieving the required sonic synergy.
The SL-1200/1210, in my experience, doesn't like high-mass clamps or weights, although does benefit significantly from the use of a medium-mass weight, such as the Bruil, especially in conjuncton with a 5mm Achromat, firmly coupled to the matching Funk Firm platter, in order that the former 'mates' with the latter, to create a cohesive 'whole'.
Marco.
Well, I'm not sure what we are agreeing to differ on exactly - in your last paragraph you seem to agree with me - is that not the case?
Indeed, but where we differ is in the area of high-mass weights not working with high-torque direct-drive T/Ts, idlers and high-mass string and tape-drive T/Ts. From experience, I contend that they do (depending on what type of mat is used), whereas this suggests that you think otherwise:
In addition, motor torque is not an issue as it is unlikely to be a problem even with very heavy weights as the mass is at the centre of rotation and has a very low rotational velocity. In my opinion (and experience), coupling the record directly to any mass results in a negative sonic impact (irrespective of associated positive elements) - heavy duty bearings and high torque motors cannot address this.
Quite simply, I hear no negative sonic impact when using high-mass record weights with the above types of T/Ts; in fact quite the opposite, as there are usually always significant sonic benefits!
*That* is where we differ, although we agree that this doesn't apply with the SL-1200/1210 :)
Marco.
sq225917
19-09-2012, 11:51
I think where forum opinions, and Mark's and my own might differ, is that we've measured the difference in bearing rumble on quite a wide variety of decks; in standard trim, with heavy (400gm+) weights and/or with the bearing supported magnetically to reduce or eliminate entirely the pressure on the point contact.
I don't recall a single example where added weight didn't increase rumble. On some decks its was hardly measurable <0.5db on my Kuzma for example, which uses a plastic bearing journal and contact point. With other decks, particularly heavily built idlers, the difference was more profound, with a Goldring 99 being the worst at closer to 3db more noise. If there is noise in the chassis a heavy weight would appear to be a bad idea from a noise point of view. If you can achieve a similar level of consistent downwards force without the added weight then surely that would be the goal in these circumstances- in fact in all circumstances where you wish to couple the record more closely to the platter/mat. I'm not sure that every deck benefits from increased coupling, but some do.
There's certainly no example in which added bearing noise/motor rumble is beneficial, irrespective of what mat arrangement you have. The question simply becomes does coupling the record to the mat/platter improve the sound. If so then the obvious choice is to do this in the way that introduces least noise.
As a side issue obviously there are problems with added mass to suspended chassis turntables which go beyond issues of noise. For these decks then the lightweight clamp is a win win- more optimum suspension and less chance of increasing bearing noise through added weight.
It's nice to see Mark taking a different approach to optimizing vinyl playback and coming at potential solutions from a different angle that bears obvious fruit. Of course those with vested interests in commercially available alternatives will always try to pick holes in a new idea, especially when they are lacking in genuine creativity themselves.
Of course those with vested interests in commercially available alternatives will always try to pick holes in a new idea, especially when they are lacking in genuine creativity themselves.
Who's picking holes? Are you saying Marco's in the TT weight business?
Oh I see now....the email notification of your post shows you originally directed your post above to myself, your then changed it to start "I think where forum opinions".
You seem a little distracted as I've not been picking holes at all, not as far as I can see or intended anyway. If you must know I've used TT weights from time to time and the only one I got on with was the integral Michell one on a GyrOrbe but I wasn't looking for a fight with anyone but you seem to be.
No problem, Simon.
At the end of the day, all we can do is comment on the results obtained from our own practical experience, whether that be through measuring and listening, or purely the latter - it doesn't matter, as all our respective experiences in that area are valid.
In that sense, I stand by everything that I've written, regarding the subject of record clamps/weights, as it's based on what I've heard to date.
It would certainly be interesting sometime to compare Mark's mat and record weight solution, to my own, using my T/T as the 'guinea pig', rather than the usual belt-drives, as I suspect that we would hear the respective benefits and downfalls of BOTH approaches - and that's the main point in debates such as this: everything in audio creates some form of compromise, therefore all we can do, effectively, is choose our compromises.
There is no 'perfect solution' for anything.
That principle applies to the design of record weights/clamps, the same as everything else. Therefore, it's best to accept and embrace that fact and resist the temptation of becoming absolutist! ;)
Marco.
sq225917
19-09-2012, 16:48
Clive I changed the start of the post because after reading the full post, once posted, it had drifted from just discussing topics you raised to wider concerns. True enough Marco isn't in the turntable business, I never stated that he was.
Marco, I have no doubt at all that adding a record weight into the mix can improve things in some cases. What I'm pointing out is the possibility that people could benefit from the clamping effect without the deleterious effects of the added weight that is typically required to achieve the clamping. I can't measure how much a record weight improves what people like about a particular deck, but I can measure the negative effects of the increased weight.
It's simple equation. If we know adding weight increases noise, but we also know that it can improve the sound due to clamping the record then surely a clamp without the weight would be even better?
Surely?
Clive I changed the start of the post because after reading the full post, once posted, it had drifted from just discussing topics you raised to wider concerns. True enough Marco isn't in the turntable business, I never stated that he was.
Simon, the reason it originally looked as though you were have a go at Marco is that anyone reading the recent posts would have seen that the most vociferous discussion was between Mark and Marco. I said very little. I then saw the forum notification which showed your original text where it's clear you were having a go a myself. Yes there's some history here but in all reasonableness it's simply not the case that Chris, Marco or myself were trying be awkward - this is a discussion forum FFS! Your comments about vested commercial interests were out of place, certainly in my context, I assume Marco's too, I can't comment on Chris as I don't really know anything about him.
The only derailing of the topic has come from yourself.
First of all, let me state categorically that I am part of no business involving the production of record weights! :doh: Right, now that bollocks is out of the way...
Marco, I have no doubt at all that adding a record weight into the mix can improve things in some cases. What I'm pointing out is the possibility that people could benefit from the clamping effect without the deleterious effects of the added weight that is typically required to achieve the clamping.
It's simple equation. If we know adding weight increases noise, but we also know that it can improve the sound due to clamping the record then surely a clamp without the weight would be even better?
In theory, absolutely yes, but in practice, who knows?
The fact is, there are simply too many variables to consider (not least of which is how said claimed improvement affects the rest of the partnering system, sonically) for any definitive answer to be formed, which is proven by the fact that Mark and you have achieved notable sonic benefits from adopting that method, using certain turntables (including your own) as a reference, and yet whenever I've used high-mass record weights with the T/Ts I've mentioned previously, it has ALWAYS resulted in a significant sonic improvement, which is the opposite of what you're claiming.
Therefore, if your theory, when put into practice, were true in all instances, then why didn't I hear any negative sonic impact (and indeed the exact opposite) when using heavy record weights with the D/D, high-mass string/tape drives, and idler T/Ts I've previously mentioned?
Marco.
Rare Bird
20-09-2012, 08:30
Dunno if im being a tad behind the door but the whole idea of putting even more weight onto a bearing let alone stress on the motor is something ive never contemplating doing! ive always gone the lightweight Michell type clamp route (Even though im fuming at the min as i have a NOS Michell 'Focus One' clamp boxed that i cannot find anywhere in the house for he life of me) :steam:
Dunno if im being a tad behind the door but the whole idea of putting even more weight onto a bearing let alone stress on the motor is something ive never contemplating doing! ive always gone the lightweight Michell type clamp route (Even though im fuming at the min as i have a NOS Michell 'Focus One' clamp boxed that i cannot find anywhere in the house for he life of me) :steam:
I hope you find it Andre! In theory you're right about heavy weights IMO but as Marco's been saying, does it really matter? Maybe the benefit is so great on some decks that the downsides aren't relevant. Then again on other decks if rumble is excited to such a degree clearly it's the wrong route for those decks.
What I will say is that I don't believe most TT manufacturers calculate the platter weight and bearing load. Some even offer heavier optional platters whilst using the same bearing.
What's being missed here, Clive, is that a turntable, like any other source component, is part of a system, and so when 'improving' the performance of your turntable (e.g. as a result of using an effective record weight), then you have to consider how said 'improvement' will impact, sonically, on the rest of your system (and indeed on that belonging to anyone else following your advice), as at the end of the day, it's the sound of the system you're listening to, and how it presents music, not just the sound of the turntable! ;)
As an example, you could fit a new cartridge to your turntable, which (measurably) is technically superior to what you had before, but in turn has the increased resolution upset the balance of your system, by revealing faults elsewhere or created a more clinical sound that, to your ears, isn't as musically satisfying?
Now, I'm not saying for one moment that's what's happened in Simon's or Mark's system, as a result of them using their chosen style of record weight, indeed I'm sure that the improvements claimed are genuine, and with no adverse side-effects.
All I am saying, however, is that when making improvements (genuine or otherwise) to a specific component, it's very easy to upset the overall balance of your system, therefore you have to think very carefully about the knock-on effect of any so-called improvements carried out, and certainly that you cannot assume that the success you've obtained, by using a specific type of record weight, will be automatically realised in someone else's turntable or system, simply because, superficially, it makes 'technical sense'.
Marco.
Absolutely Marco. I'll try not to use the word synergy, indeed I think equilibrium fits rather better!
Rare Bird
20-09-2012, 09:26
I hope you find it Andre! In theory you're right about heavy weights IMO but as Marco's been saying, does it really matter? Maybe the benefit is so great on some decks that the downsides aren't relevant. Then again on other decks if rumble is excited to such a degree clearly it's the wrong route for those decks.
What I will say is that I don't believe most TT manufacturers calculate the platter weight and bearing load. Some even offer heavier optional platters whilst using the same bearing.
It's not so much the increase in rumble figures that bothers me it's the welfare of the bearing & motor that does.. After carefull consideration over a couple of old second hand decks i was looking into buying, i decided to go for one that has a thin aluminium platter that only weighs in at 1.2Kg together with acrylic platter that weighs in at 0.3Kg..
As mentioned i can't find my Michell clamp so can't comment on the weight.. These items, as a combination don't weight that much & im happy with that, i always bear in mind that you have an additional weight upto around 200grm for vinyl record ontop of that.
At the end of the day it's Peace of mind more than anything knowing there's not a big load for that poor motor to deal with on start up's..
The amount of heavy platter decks ive bought in the past that have required motor changes is beggars belief.. I try to avoid any of this malarky in the future.
sq225917
20-09-2012, 10:38
Therefore, if your theory, when put into practice, were true in all instances, then why didn't I hear any negative sonic impact (and indeed the exact opposite) when using heavy record weights with the D/D, high-mass string/tape drives, and idler T/Ts I've previously mentioned?
Marco.
Because the small increase in rumble was masked by the improvements you heard in other areas. But you could have those improvements that come from the clamping without the increased noise that comes from the weight.
Of course a person might consider that increased noise has some magical, beneficial properties. I can see but not understand the viewpoint that says 'I will add any form of distortion that I like the sound of' for me, noise is noise.
Because the small increase in rumble was masked by the improvements you heard in other areas.
Perhaps, if indeed that were the case. However, you're missing the point.
If the end result is that there are no audible downsides, and that the sound, and consequently, one's appreciation of the music is increased (as was the case when I did it, and also agreed by two other people present) by using a high-mass record weight on, say, a Thorens TD-124, in someone's system other than yours, then the addition of any (inaudible) rumble is irrelevant.
Which is more desirable: a result that measures better, technically, but sounds worse to the listener, or the opposite? Your argument about noise is also somewhat spurious. Valve amps are measurably 'noisier' than solid-state amps, yet to my ears (and those of many others), despite that fact, many sound superior, musically, to their solid-state counterparts.
The fact is, all that matters is the end result, as dictated by the system's overall sound (not simply that of the turntable), and what the listener hears (and enjoys) in his or her system, with his or her favourite music. Anything else is of secondary importance! :)
The problem is, you're too obsessed with measurements, when they're not all that should be considered ;)
Marco.
All this talk of TT weights has encouraged me to re-try a couple. I'll give them a go on the 301 later. The one of the left is a "Grippa", it's the lighter of the two and is tightened down on the record using the knurled brass knob (can I use such words?).
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/cmeakins/TTW_zps1b180191.jpg
seoirse2002
20-09-2012, 11:49
Dunno if im being a tad behind the door but the whole idea of putting even more weight onto a bearing let alone stress on the motor is something ive never contemplating doing! ive always gone the lightweight Michell type clamp route (Even though im fuming at the min as i have a NOS Michell 'Focus One' clamp boxed that i cannot find anywhere in the house for he life of me) :steam:
Me too,I use the Michell clamp,but not on all records....anybody got any thoughts/experience of using a clamp on a Saturn Transcriptor? just got it and havent a clue how to set it up....could do with some help actually...
ps
I lost my clamp once and discovered that the wife had "put it away":)
All this talk of TT weights has encouraged me to re-try a couple. I'll give them a go on the 301 later. The one of the left is a "Grippa", it's the lighter of the two and is tightened down on the record using the knurled brass knob (can I use such words?).
Nice one. I'd be interested in the results.
Incidentally, before Simon, or anyone else, thinks that I'm the world's biggest fan of noisy rumble-in the-jungle (lol), let me reiterate that what I'm getting at is choosing the best compromise, simply because, in audio, there is ALWAYS such a choice to make, unless one mistakenly believes that there exists a 'perfect' and universal solution to all or any specific problem.
Therefore, allow me to put it this way:
If, from the use of a high-mass record weight, on a specific turntable (not mine), I hear greater vocal intelligibility, superior detail retrieval, and overall the music is rendered as sounding more realistic and enjoyable (as it did when I tried it, compared with no weight, or using a lighter weight), do I forget about all that, and instead worry about some measured rumble, the effects of which I can't hear? ;)
No, what I do is choose the best compromise, simply because the negative effect of the noise measured, caused by the increased (but inaudible) rumble, is significantly outweighed by the sonic improvement gained by using the high-mass record weight.
Simples!!
Therefore, in summary, the heavy record weight must be fixing more issues (in other areas) than it's creating, in terms of increased rumble... Excellent - we have now reached the best compromise :)
Marco.
Rare Bird
20-09-2012, 12:57
Me too,I use the Michell clamp,but not on all records....anybody got any thoughts/experience of using a clamp on a Saturn Transcriptor? just got it and havent a clue how to set it up....could do with some help actually...
Michell clamps no probs with the 'Saturn'.. Any probs with the deck give Micheal a buzz he's a nice bloke.
http://www.transcriptors.net/spyder/saturn
I've had a quick play with these 2 weights on my 301.
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e359/cmeakins/TTW_zps1b180191.jpg
The effects are really rather obvious. This is only a subjective test on one record deck so I wouldn't want to generalise too much from what I've heard.
1) The heavier weight - RHS in the pic - this gives a stronger bass which times better, definitely more foot tapping. Vocals are better focused dead centre, this aids intelligibility.
2) The Grippa - LHS in the photo - this is tightened down onto the record. Bass is a same as 1) above but the vocals don't quite have the focus of 1).
3) The Grippa not tightened down, this has least vocal focus of all and bass weight/timing is though there's no weight in use. There's surface noise too, which wasn't at all noticeable with 1) and 2).
I don't have suitable scales to weigh the weights but the interesting thing is that Grippa is not that much lighter than the heavier weight yet when used simply as a weight the results are not good.
Most interesting, and kind of backs up what I wrote earlier! ;)
Marco.
Yes - greater focus and tighter bass are the aspects I notice moving from a medium weight (Bruil) to a heavy weight (Stillpoints). I have yet to hear any more rumble, but I doubt that even the Stillpoints' weight is going to upset the Mike New bearing.
You can't hear rumble directly unless it is very bad indeed - what you can hear is the absence of its influence when it is lowered, or removed.
Agreed, Mark, and my noise floor keeps lowering every time I improve the phono system.
You can't hear rumble directly unless it is very bad indeed - what you can hear is the absence of its influence when it is lowered, or removed.
Yup, but what you have to weigh that up against, conversely, are the sonic benefits (if any are heard) of using a high-mass record weight, which in turn, was responsible for creating the increased rumble.
It's a catch-22 situation, and like I said earlier, the only solution is to seek the best compromise, and use your ears to judge what that is.
Clearly, the use of a heavier record weight, in Martin's system, has not caused an overall deleterious effect, despite arguably increasing the effect of rumble from his turntable :)
Marco.
What if you could have a record weight that behaved exactly like a high mass design, but actually has low mass....?
Then I would listen to it with the same turntable on which I heard the improvement with the high-mass weight, compare the results, and then decide which weight was best, to my ears, in the context of the test system.
What I wouldn't do is dismiss the high-mass weight, simply because it caused (inaudible) increased rumble - and I certainly wouldn't presume that the low-mass design was superior, simply because measurements said so! ;)
Marco.
It's only a conceptual proposition.
Just because there isn't a flashing neon sign proclaiming the existence of low level distortion, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And just because it exists doesn't mean that the effect isn't outweighed by positive sonic benefits in other areas, obtained by the use of the high-mass record weight!
Are we finished going round in circles yet? :D
The important message amongst all this pointless arguing is, forget measurements and just use your ears to judge, as Martin has clearly done, to his benefit, with the use of his new high-mass record weight, despite it being claimed that it should be worse because it's heavier than his old one! ;)
As for the distortion/noise argument - if noise and distortion were the only issues to consider, then why aren't all 'quieter' solid-state amps automatically sonically superior to ALL their 'noisier' valve counterparts?
Marco.
Yes, I am
Excelllent, I'm finished, too, so let's leave it there and move on! :cool:
Marco.
Rare Bird
20-09-2012, 18:51
TFFT :eyebrows:
Wossat stand for? :)
Marco.
"Thank Fuck For That" (an acronym - I won't be adding to the Library's list of abbreviations :lol:)
I'm in complete agreement, but could I have chips with mine? :)
Marco.
"Thank Fuck For That" (an acronym - I won't be adding to the Library's list of abbreviations :lol:)
Now no longer called 'The Library'! ;)
Marco.
Rare Bird
20-09-2012, 20:49
WaWoMFT
Ant wasting mine either
Or mine. Circular arguments are always pointless :)
Marco.
sq225917
20-09-2012, 22:26
Therefore, allow me to put it this way:
If, from the use of a high-mass record weight, on a specific turntable (not mine), I hear greater vocal intelligibility, superior detail retrieval, and overall the music is rendered as sounding more realistic and enjoyable (as it did when I tried it, compared with no weight, or using a lighter weight), do I forget about all that, and instead worry about some measured rumble, the effects of which I can't hear? ;)
No, what I do is choose the best compromise, simply because the negative effect of the noise measured, caused by the increased (but inaudible) rumble, is significantly outweighed by the sonic improvement gained by using the high-mass record weight.
Marco.
Actually what one probably should do is look for an even better potential solution that offers the benefits of the high mass, but without the added rumble. A couple of db of rumble is significant, particularly if your system is resolving enough. It's not such an obvious effect as tilting the FR might be, or improving the speed stability of your deck so it can actually hold a note without wavering, but it's a worthwhile gain never the less. Maybe owners of rumbly idlers and noisy valve amps just don't notice some extra noise like the rest of us might ;-)
Actually what one probably should do is look for an even better potential solution that offers the benefits of the high mass, but without the added rumble.
Yes, provided that it's an overall better solution, with no other discernible downsides, which may not be the case! We're going round in circles again... :doh:
A couple of db of rumble is significant, particularly if your system is resolving enough. It's not such an obvious effect as tilting the FR might be, or improving the speed stability of your deck so it can actually hold a note without wavering, but it's a worthwhile gain never the less. Maybe owners of rumbly idlers and noisy valve amps just don't notice some extra noise like the rest of us might
Aye, very good! :D
Then, why has Martin, who owns a very high-end, immaculately set-up, highly revealing all solid-state system, not noticed this supposed increased rumble, when he moved from using a medium-mass record weight, to a high-mass one, on his modded SL-1210??
Marco.
We have analysis paralysis here. Let the ears decide. Try both and whichever sounds better becomes the preferred option. Specs are great if you're measuring ALL the pertinent parameters; maybe there's more going on than just rumble. It could be that extra mass has unforeseen benefits and that an important metric has been overlooked.
We have analysis paralysis here. Let the ears decide. Try both and whichever sounds better becomes the preferred option. Specs are great if you're measuring ALL the pertinent parameters; maybe there's more going on than just rumble. It could be that extra mass has unforeseen benefits and that an important metric has been overlooked.
Exactly! If I like what I'm hearing from a system, and have assessed the efficacy of something (such as a record weight), using my own ears and judgement, I couldn't give a flying fook what measurements say to the contrary, particularly when they're obviously NOT telling the full story!!!
Measuring anything else but ALL pertinent parameters, when assessing something, is simply a recipe for a flawed analysis.
Marco.
Marco, do you know how much your record weight weighs - if not, could you weigh it for me please (kitchen scales) - thanks :).
358g, dude.
How did you get on with the recordings, btw? PM me your findings :)
Marco.
Cool, thanks - that's actually pretty light, I thought it would be a lot heavier. Have you tried a heavier one? If so, what did you find? On reflection, I think that I should have asked this question earlier as it seems we were rather arguing over nothing, as I assumed that 'heavy' meant more like a kilogramme.
Got on well with the recordings - the biggest issue was that the Internet has been down at my house most of the day and I needed it to check something - will PM (or email) you tomorrow with the details and my recordings.
Hi Mark,
Yup, I know that's pretty light. So far, I've not found a heavy record weight that benefits the SL-1200/1210 (all have sounded notably worse), although Martin likes the Stillpoints. I will compare it with the Bruil (what I'm currently using) next time I'm at his place, and will report the results.
I think the confusion has arisen in my stating that I've heard good results with high-mass record weights (500g+) on vintage T/Ts, such as Thorens TD124s, Goldring G99s, Garrard 401s, etc, so they *can* work well in certain applications.
Marco.
P.S No worries about the recordings - cool :)
Yeah - I measured it today and the one I am using has an effective mass of 750g.
Whoa! Although, like you said before, it doesn't behave like a high-mass weight...
Marco.
Whoa! Although, like you said before, it doesn't behave like a high-mass weight...
Marco.
"Effective" mass...
Yes, that's right - it loads the record label with 750g but only actually weighs 79g.
I'll measure one of my previous designs tomorrow.
sq225917
25-09-2012, 07:59
Blimey Mark that's nearly 10:1
That's a veritable black hole of increased gravitational force.
I can't know but I am expecting that internally it's more thoroughly engineered Clearaudio Clever Clamp sort of arrangement. I've always meant to try one of these but never got around to it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RZ1_NtWvJE
sq225917
25-09-2012, 10:49
That looks interesting. Is it not limited in that it can only apply as much force as can be created by the downward flexion of the record into the recess. I assume the tabs on the inside flex upward to provide a resistive force against the spindle when it is pressed into place. But with the tabs effectively going into the spindle perpendicular to the record surface how much downwards force can they transmit?
It looks clever in that it no doubt requires quite a pull to remove it, but how much downwards force can it impart. It's really no different to the star-fangled nut used in the headset of my mountain bike forks- the difference is, that requires loading up with a allen key to provide any downwards pull.
Functionally that seems to do what the Michel clamp does through a different mechanism. Mark's is different again.
I think you have to twist it to remove it - will make one and investigate.
I have a Souther Clever Clamp which in use, even on my Heybrook TT's.
I like what it does to the sound most of the time, doesn't load the bearing and applies a moderate amount of pressure when usen with a flexible record mat, like a linn felt mat.
It is sold by Clearaudio, but is actually labeled Souther.
Regards Mike
Ps it does not require twisting to mount/unmount.
Hmm...today I made myself one of those Souther clamps (laser cut acrylic) and it basically just uses friction to grip the spindle - so the pressure it is capable of exerting depends on the compliance of the four plastic fingers. It is a very low mass design though.
http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h90/markemark_2006/1-7.jpg
It doesn't really apply much pressure though; although it does grip the spindle quite firmly.
sq225917
27-09-2012, 19:06
Now that looks proper funky. Can't say i'm surprised it doesn't actually provide any useful downwards force though.
Yup, no doubt Funky, with a capital 'F'! How useful is it, though? :)
Marco.
sq225917
27-09-2012, 19:13
useful to prove the concept doesn't actually provide clamping force like a weight or Marks new clamp does.
Yeah, it works just like the Souther/Clearaudio clamp - but really this design is about gripping the record spindle and an O-ring would do that. The only direct pressure it applies is that which you press it on to the record with - on my non-compliant mat there is a definite limit to how firmly it can press on to the record. This is the second one I made - as Simon says, I only made it so see how effective the concept is (I've posted the picture cos it does look quite cool I think :)).
walpurgis
27-09-2012, 19:31
Logically, a record clamp can't damp the whole record, so you have to accept that any damping will be partial at best.
Also, I can picture too much mass actually pushing the centre of the record down enough to cause the outer part of the record to lift off the platter mat to a degree. And yes, I know there are outer edge mass rings available which may control this.
I'd say what is required is sufficient weight/damping to the record at the interface with the record label without putting undue and undesirable extra load on the turntable main bearing.
I would partially agree, you certainly don't want to load the bearing too much; but you would be hard pressed (no pun intended) to lift the edge of a record, even with a very heavy weight. I would also say that, although many clamp manufacturers cite damping properties for their clamps, the actual damping offered is minimal at best. The largest difference is how the clamp/weight causes the record to interact with the platter or mat.
The largest difference is how the clamp/weight causes the record to interact with the platter or mat.
Spot on, in my view.
sq225917
28-09-2012, 00:06
In an ideal world records would all be 25mm thick, perfectly flat and we wouldn't need a full platter. Sadly though they are all different.
It's hard to believe the Clever Clamp can exert a lot of pressure, which the experiment validates, maybe it helps though in some situations. I remember The Pig from the 80s, a rubber to be slipped over the shaft.....it wasn't great and it better not to use it. :eyebrows:
Having revisited using a TT weight, I've tried my heavier weight on the 301 with a rubber mat and the Salvation with Mark's nipple mat and the Resomat. All mats improve with the weight and as Simon infers this is quite record dependent.
The already excellent nipple mat derives the greatest level of benefit. The difference between the improvement in sound is most easily heard in the bass. All mats improve in the bass but the nipple mat most of all - I expect this is due to said mat having the least interface with the record and the weight therefore is able to make the biggest difference in coupling mat to record.
sq225917
28-09-2012, 08:15
Do you think the improvement is due to the record coupling with the mat, or the record weight being used as an energy sink for the products of tracing noise bouncing around inside the vinyl itself? I wonder which it is and if a clamp made of vinyl might not provide the best impedance match of all...
Rare Bird
29-09-2012, 00:54
Jeez..maybe some day santa my deliver a set of earholes :D
Haven't a clue what you are on about Andre!
daytona600
05-10-2012, 07:26
Never really had the chance to play records without a clamp myself
used a oracle for over 25years Would not play a lp without the screw record clamp fitted to the raised platter mat
Recently playing about and testing various vinyl products with my 3 other decks
clamps , weights , platter mats , platter rings & phono stages , SUTs , phono cables
Will be posting my thoughts in due course , and offering a very wide selection for AOS guys to try out with your own decks
Oracle themselves have been through quite a number of mat systems over the years - sonically very different solutions too.
daytona600
05-10-2012, 08:40
really meant with a oracle you can,t play records without using the screwed record clamp , part of the design , very good with warped records
used the supplied mat with the delphi , had it for 30years now design classic
Also used a acoustic signature this used a huge screw clamp as well
Hmm... I'm not a fan of the concave platter approach.
Why is that, Mark? Out of pure interest.
daytona600
05-10-2012, 15:33
bought a oracle when they came out , still have it after 30years
never missed a beat since the 80s , only the led on the front failed
delphi Mk1 , sumiko MDC800 the arm , EMT tsd
always found the concave mat & clamp worked great
Still always gets the same response
" Thats lovely what the fuck is it "
I have always love the Thorens stabilizer and used one for 8 years.
I've recently added an Oyaide MJ-12 TT mat & was resigned to having to replace my Standard spec Michell clamp for my Gyro s.e.
This was due to the now shortened exposed spindle length caused by adding the Oyaide. I've found a neat fix though for any facing a similar situation. If you add a suitably sized O' ring to the clamps underside & pass the central locking "Pawl" thingummybob through it it'll cope nicely with a shortened spindle as it "Pre Loads" the locking element of the clamp & it's already biting nicely as you slip it onto the spindle'
I'm actually finding that as a clamping arrangement it is now working far more nicely than it ever did in standard trim with just the Gyro platter. I've also found with a couple of Albums with fairly severe warps that these have effectively been ironed out. I never got close to this with the straight platter despite much experimentation with foam rings & various placement options using the supplied felt washer.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.